Education Bill, 1997: Second Stage.

Minister for Education (Ms Bhreathnach)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

It gives me great pleasure to propose the Education Bill, 1997 to this House. The Bill, and the debate on it, provides this House with a rare, even unique, opportunity to debate a Bill concerning the provision of education at first and second levels in Ireland.

It builds upon the best features of our education system as it has evolved. It does this while, at the same time, recognising the need for change in many aspects of education to meet the needs of students, parents and the partners in education, in a rapidly changing society.

The Bill builds upon, and is the culmination of, an extensive and in-depth dialogue among all the partners in education. The National Education Convention and the subsequent round table discussions on intermediate education structures and school governance involved, for the first time, structured multilateral dialogue among all the partners in education. I take this opportunity to pay a special tribute to all who took part in these discussions, in particular the chairperson, Professor Dearbhla Donnelly, and the secretary of the Convention, Professor John Houlihan.

There is now a wide recognition that this process significantly enhanced mutual understanding. It promoted an appreciation of respective positions and difficulties. It promoted an increased awareness of the fundamental importance of partnership, pluralism and a deeper commitment to co-operation and consensus as the key to Charting our Education Future.

Since becoming Minister for Education, I have sought to promote dialogue and debate. The Bill before us today is the product of such openness. Its publication does not bring to an end the dialogue between the partners in education which has played such a key part in bringing us to where we are today. Since publication, I and officials of my Department have continued that dialogue on the provisions of the Bill. I now look forward to hearing the views of this House.

Engaging in dialogue is not an empty gesture for me. Where a reasonable case is made to amend the Bill without diluting its central principles I am prepared to consider that case objectively and, if necessary, propose amendments on Committee Stage. In that way the spirit of partnership and openness which has characterised the consultative process so far can continue right up to enactment of the Bill and beyond.

The vital importance of education, and its power to shape and influence our lives, is recognised throughout the world. We all take a justified pride in our education system. However, we must also accept the need to identify clearly the challenges facing the system. From time to time we must take stock of development needs and think carefully about how to address them.

The Education Bill, 1997, comes before this House at an opportune time. The education structures which have served this country so well in the past are no longer appropriate to the complexities of modern education. We must now take action to reform these structures. We can no longer leave our students to make do with systems dating back to the last century. We must provide new structures, capable of providing an efficient and effective education service at national and regional levels. The Education Bill, 1997, seeks to provide the framework for these structures. The interests of all of the partners in education — parents, patrons, students, teachers and the State — are balanced and protected in the Bill. All those concerned will know with certainty their respective roles, rights and responsibilities and those of the other partners.

Current proposals represent a final step in what has been a long journey. The publication of the Green Paper, Education for a Changing World, in June 1992 was a major step forward in the 1990s. Following the publication of the Green Paper, an extensive national debate on education took place. It was a clear sign of the high regard of the people for education and of their interest in the education system.

In November 1993 I initiated the National Education Convention, a unique and unprecedented gathering of all the partners in education. At the convention the important educational issues facing us were debated by all of the partners. Following the convention I issued in March 1994 a position paper on regional educational councils and in July 1994 a paper on the governance of schools. Following publication of these papers, I and my officials engaged in further discussions with the interested parties. The White Paper on Education, Charting our Education Future, which was published by the Government in April 1995, reflected and built on these discussions. The Education Bill, 1997, derives from the commitments and objectives in the White Paper.

The Education Bill, 1997, has three main objectives. It provides for an intermediate education structure through the creation of ten education regions, each administered by an education board. It also provides for the statutory recognition and funding of schools and for the establishment, through a process of partnership and consensus, of boards of management in all first and second level schools in receipt of public funding. The management structures proposed will respond to the diversity of school types, ownership and management structures which is a central feature of education. The new structures will reflect the plurality of society, including the rights and needs of minority groups, and the concerns of all will be taken into account in the development of these structures.

The Bill will for the first time place the administrative and educational structures of our education system on a sound statutory footing. In this way it seeks to fill a vacuum which has long existed in our system. For too long the education system has been administered by departmental circulars rather than by legislative instruments subject to scrutiny by the Dáil. This "remarkable feature" of the system was referred to in the High Court in 1990 — O'Callaghan v. Meath vocational education committee — and several times since. It was also remarked upon by the Constitution Review Group in its recent report.

The Constitution Review Group, in discussing Article 42.2.4 of the Constitution which relates to State aid for schools, pointed out that:

The only legislation authorising State funding of denominational education would appear to be via the annual Appropriation Acts ... The present system of disbursing aid where, although the individual education votes are sanctioned by the Appropriation Acts, the applications of these moneys to individual schools is governed by a series of non-statutory rules and circulars is unsatisfactory. It probably conforms to the letter (but not the spirit) of Article 42.2.4 [of the Constitution]. The Review Group understands that it is likely to change with the forthcoming Education Bill.

The Education Bill, 1997, addresses this issue by placing the regulations issued by the Department of Education on a statutory basis and subject to scrutiny by the Oireachtas.

I am sure all Deputies will agree that our education system has served the country exceedingly well over the decades. Its achievements are a tribute to the dedication of our teachers, parents, school owners and managers who work so hard to make our education system as good as it is. The quality of the education system is now one of the foundations of our outstanding economic performance. Given this record of success, it is worth explaining the clear rationable underlying the proposed changes in the administration of the system. It is useful to set out the basis for our confidence that the new arrangements are both timely and important.

As Deputies will be aware, the system for the central administration of schools originates from the time when national schools were first established in Ireland by the British in the 19th century. The Department of Education was established in 1924 and at that stage the Minister for Education assumed responsibility for all national, secondary, and technical education. A centralised scheme of administration was introduced as the simplest way to manage what was then a very simple education system and as a way of ensuring that consistent standards were applied throughout the different schools. The landscape of the educational environment today is vastly different from that of the 1920s. Education is now universally available and the range and scope is dramatically better than that available in the past. The centralised structure established in the 1920s is inadequate for today's needs.

While all the partners in education — parents, school owners, teachers, and school managements — have co-operated in ensuring that our students are achieving educational standards to match any in the world, we in this House have a duty to provide a more effective basis for our education system. We must adopt an even more pro-active, dynamic approach, an approach which will not only improve our existing structures and standards but which will give our education system the flexibility and awareness to predict future change and to prepare to meet it. We need a structure that is more responsive to the needs of the regions and that is representative of community interests, not remote from them. We need to decentralise many of the co-ordination and administrative functions of Marlborough Street into the regions, where they belong. We need to empower our schools even more to act as resources of learning for their communities.

Moreover, we are all aware of the greater demand for accountability in the efficient expenditure of public resources. In today's environment, education quite rightly accounts for a significant proportion of our national resources. The administrative models we have at present were designed for another age when education was a modest undertaking for the State. We need new arrangements to administer our education system in an open, transparent and accountable way.

Modern international thinking strongly supports the idea that the appropriate role of any central education authority, such as the Department of Education, should be to focus on policy development issues. The actual administration of the system should be as near to the level of selfcontained regions as possible. In this context, the OECD in its 1991 review of Irish education, concluded that the Irish education system is excessively centralised. It stated that "the Department of Education functions like a classic highly centralised bureaucracy".

At a European level, regional and community involvement in administrative matters, such as support services, school building provision and developing linkages with the business environment, is very much the norm. The central role of the State is generally confined to areas such as overall policy, curriculum supervision and quality assurance. Empowerment and mobilisation of regional and community resources is a feature of the education systems in countries such as Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. Countries such as Italy, Sweden, Spain and Portugal, which share with Ireland a tradition of highly centralised control of all aspects of the education system, have made significant progress towards devolving responsibilities to the regional level.

In following international precedents of devolution, the education boards proposed in the Education Bill will be aware of the needs of regional communities, involve and empower communities and ensure that educational needs which, in light of falling enrolments cannot always be met by individual schools, are co-ordinated more effectively. At the same time, the devolution of functions will mean the Department of Education will be able to place an increased focus on national strategic and other issues which are best dealt with at national level.

The composition of the education boards will reflect the Bill's central theme of partnership. Each board will be composed of an equal number of parents, teachers, patrons, local representatives, ministerial nominees and representatives of the wider community and will respect the diversity of values, beliefs and traditions in Irish society. The Bill sets out in some detail the functions of education boards, which include ensuring the availability of an appropriate level and quality of education to people in the region, promoting equality of access to and participation in education, promoting the right of parents to send their children to a school of the parents' choice, promoting effective liaison between schools and centres for education, contributing to the realisation of national educational policies and objectives and contributing to the realisation of national policy and objectives on the extension of bilingualism in Irish society. Each board will appoint a director, who will head the executive arm of the board and act as accounting officer. The Fourth Schedule to the Bill sets out, in some detail, the functions of the director.

Members of the House should note in particular the important effect of section 28 which gives the education boards the power to establish committees to assist them in performing their functions. It is my intention that this section will enable the boards to harness the energy and interest of individuals and groups, with the aim of improving the education service in their regions.

Time and again during my period as Minister for Education I have been struck by the willingness, indeed the eagerness, of parents and the wider community to become involved in and support the work of the education system. I am sure the House will agree these individuals and groups represent one of the most important and valuable resources of our system. This Bill will, for the first time, provide a statutory basis for the work of these groups and individuals.

Some questions have been asked about the funding of schools following the establishment of the education boards. I have been asked whether schools will continue to receive funding on the same basis as at present or whether funding intended for schools can be siphoned off to administer education boards. Section 37 specifically provides that the Minister for Education will determine each year the criteria by which schools are to be funded. Each education board will be obliged to make to each recognised school in its region a grant or grants in accordance with these criteria. These grants will be a first charge on the education boards each year. This means the Minister for Education — not any individual education board — will continue to determine the criteria by which schools will be funded. These criteria will be standard national criteria for each school or class of school, thus ensuring a consistent provision of funding for education services across the country. This also means that funds intended for schools cannot be used for any other purpose.

The record shows that the funding of education has reflected its importance in Irish society. The House will be aware that, during my time as Minister for Education, I secured a massive increase in the funding available for education, from £1.645 billion in 1992 to nearly £2.3 billion this year.

Tá an Rialtas seo go hiomlán i bhfabhar na Gaeilge. Tá an Rialtas den tuairim go bhfuil tionchar mór ag an gcóras oideachais ar fhás agus ar fhorbairt an chultúir Ghaelaigh, an Ghaeilge san áireamh. Tá tacaíocht an rialtais don Ghaeilge le feiceáil ar fud an Bhille Oideachais.

Déanann an Bille deimhin de, go mbeidh ról tábhachtach ag na boird oideachais i gcur chun cinn na Gaeilge. Déanann an Bille deimhin de chomh maith, go mbeidh ról láidir ag na boird oideachais tacú le foghlaim na Gaeilge ina réigúin féin. Tá sé ráite sa Bhille i gcás aon limistéar oideachais a bhfuil cuid den Ghaeltacht ann, go n-ainmneoidh Údarás na Gaeltachta ball amháin le bheith ar an mbord oideachais don limistéar sin. Tá sé ráite freisin go mbeidh sé de dhualgas ar na boird oideachais a chinntiú go mbeidh dóthain daoine ina bhfostaíocht chun seirbhísí trí Ghaeilge a chur ar fáil.

Ba mhaith liom freisin aire na Dála a dhíriú ar mhír a trí déag. Deirtear sa mhír seo nach mór go mbeadh cumas maith sa Ghaeilge ag stiúrthóir bhord oideachais sa chás go mbíonn cuid den Ghaeltacht taobh istigh de limistéar an bhoird oideachais sin. Moltar chomh maith go mbeadh Gaeilge mhaith ag stiúrthóirí na mbord eile. Deir mír a fiche hocht go gcuirfidh gach bord oideachais coiste speisialta ar bun chun comhairle a thabhairt don bhord ar mhúineadh agus ar chur chun cinn na Gaeilge.

De bhreis ar seo, shocraigh mé go mbeadh foráil speisialta sa Bhille a rachadh chun leasa mhúineadh na Gaeilge. I mír a caoga sé, trí, tá sé ráite gur féidir leis an Aire Oideachais foras a chur ar bun chun pleanáil agus comhordú a dhéanamh ar sholáthar téacsleabhar agus áiseanna a bheadh oiriúnach do theagasc agus d'fhoghlaim na Gaeilge.

Mar fhocal scoir, ba mhaith liom a rá go neartóidh na forálacha nua seo go léir na forálacha atá ann cheana féin don Ghaeilge. Cuirfidh siad áit na Gaeilge sa chóras oideachais ar bhonn reachtúil. Léiríonn an Bille Oideachais tacaíocht an Rialtais don teanga náisiúnta maraon le mo thacaíocht féin.

The Education Bill, 1997, also deals with the important issue of the boards of management of schools. This was one of the most important issues dealt with by the National Education Convention. The introduction, on a voluntary basis, of boards of management at primary level in 1975 represented a huge leap forward in our education system. The boards provide an opportunity for all interested parties — the patrons, parents and teachers — to play a meaningful role in the management of schools. The Bill builds on the existing system and provides that every school at first and second level will have a board of management. Members of a board will be appointed by the patron of the school in accordance with regulations made by the Minister.

Each board of management will act in accordance with policies determined by the Minister and will consult with and keep the patron informed of decisions and proposals of the board. Concern has been expressed that boards of management will interfere with the property and other rights of patrons and owners. The objective in the interests of the common good is to provide for a statutory scheme whereby all the interests in education can exercise their rights and know their responsibilities. This requires a careful balance which is achieved in the reasonable and proportionate measures in the Bill.

For more than a century and a half since the beginning of the system of national education, the role of the patrons of schools has become, and continues to be, of immense importance. In recent years new patrons have emerged, for example, for multi-denominational schools and Gaelscoileanna. This welcome development reflects the ongoing changes which continue to shape our society. Patrons of schools have legitimate rights in the operation of schools. The importance of the key role of the patron has been clearly recognised in the Education Bill.

The patrons-owners of schools will retain a key role in the schools they founded and nurtured. The most significant effect of the Bill in respect of patrons-owners is that, under its provisions, the patrons will act to a greater degree than heretofore in partnership with parents, teachers and the community. Such partnership is not a new departure as, for some time, the patrons have shared their role with the other partners. The Bill arises from a deepening and broadening of that partnership while retaining the many benefits which flow from the close association patrons have with the schools. The Education Bill, 1997, contains a number of important provisions for teachers. When it is enacted, teachers' representatives will have statutory entitlement to membership of education boards and boards of management. Each education board will be obliged to consult teachers during the preparation of its education plan and will provide support services, including teacher welfare services. Each school will have to ensure that staff development needs are identified and provided for. Procedures for the appointment of principals and teachers will have to be agreed between the Minister for Education, the patron and teacher unions or staff associations. There will be a statutory obligation on each school board of management to consult teachers on the preparation of the school plan.

A number of these provisions, in particular those relating to the appointment and dismissal of teachers, simply statutory underpin the procedures currently in operation in the education system and provide a statutory guarantee that any change in such procedures will occur only with the agreement of all the relevant partners.

The Education Bill will for the first time, clearly define the role and responsibilities of the school. This is an essentially commonsense provision, which sets out the functions the majority of schools fulfil every day. What the section adds to the present arrangements is a clear statement of the rights and responsibilities of all of the members of the school community.

Section 44 sets out the functions of boards of management. This section merely reflects what the majority of boards of management have been doing at primary level for the past 20 years, and in some second level schools for nearly as long. It provides for the important role of the patron, and for the patron's right to be kept informed of the decisions and proposals of the board. Most importantly it provides for parental choice, by confirming the rights of parents to choose a school for their children which is in line with their own cultural, educational, moral, religious and social values.

Another important aspect of the Bill is that it provides a statutory framework for the preparation of school plans in consultation with the parents, the patron, staff and students of the school. It specifically takes into account those students and their parents who feel they have been dealt with unjustly within the education system. Section 55 provides a mechanism for a student and/or parent, to appeal a decision of a teacher or other members of staff, when the decision materially affects the education of the student. Depending on the type of appeal involved, appeals may be re-heard in full, or the issue may be considered on procedural grounds alone. However, when the decision relates to a refusal to enrol a student, or to the permanent exclusion of a student from a school, the appeal will be the subject of a full rehearing.

Concerns have been expressed that the appeals system may cause a great deal of extra work for schools. These concerns are unfounded. The appeals system will include safeguards against frivolous or mischievous appeals and will be used only when a matter materially affecting a student is not resolved at principal or even at board of management level. The system will deal with serious grievances with speed and finality. The Minister will consult the partners in education to frame regulations under this legislation.

The present system of administration of our education system dates back to the 19th century. We can improve this system, in terms both of its inclusiveness and its effectiveness. I remind the House of an observation made by the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Costello, on 11 October last year. He said:

Hundreds of millions of pounds are spent annually on education by means of administrative measures known only to a handful of officials and specialists ... the measures [are] not readily available to the public and their effect [is] uncertain and often ambiguous.

The Education Bill will address this concern. It is landmark legislation which arose from a sustained, open and intensive process of consultation with all of the partners in education. It is rooted in the White Paper, Charting our Education Future, and provides the means by which many of the Government's White Paper commitments will be implemented.

The White Paper principles of pluralism, partnership, accountability, quality and equality form the basis of this Bill which seeks to place the education system on a new footing. It will provide for a new dynamic and pro-active approach to education. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Martin

While I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate, I am concerned at the haste with which the Bill is being pushed through the House. It would appear that many of the educational interests have not had sufficient time to circulate the Bill to their members, organise meetings, facilitate inputs from their members and prepare an articulated position on the Bill following such consultations. In recent days, when word went out that the Bill was to be debated on Second Stage in the House, many organisations have been frantically faxing to me, and other Deputies, their hurried positions on it. From a democratic perspective, this is unsatisfactory and makes a mockery of the principle of partnership enshrined in the White Paper on Education. I suspect the Bill is being rushed through the House primarily out of electoral considerations. The Minister is anxious to have it through the Houses of the Oireachtas before the general election which is due to take place in either May or June. She can then wave it around and say, "I had a Bill passed".

With respect, the Bill is of more fundamental importance than meeting certain electoral needs of the Labour Party. Adequate time should have been given to all the partners in education to study and reflect on it to formulate a policy position. That is not the case and it does not reflect well on the Minister. The Bill is an attempt to give a legislative framework to the education system and marks the continuation of a process begun by the former Minister for Education, Deputy O'Rourke, and continued by her colleagues, Deputies Davern and Seamus Brennan, which led to the publication of the Green and White Papers on Education.

No one has a difficulty with placing the education system on a proper, sound statutory footing. The Bill, as presented, however, involves much more than that. It is fundamentally undemocratic and the very antithesis of true devolution of authority and responsibility. Control from the centre permeates every section. Far from representing a radical devolution of authority from the top down, the Bill reinforces and strengthens ministerial control over education. The Minister is mentioned repeatedly, almost in every second line, and retains strong power over the entire education system.

The Bill proposes to establish ten regional education boards which will introduce a new intermediate tier in the education system. Fianna Fáil is opposed to the establishment of these boards on the grounds they will be too expensive and too remote from local education interests. Conservative estimates suggest that in time they could cost up to £50 million per annum to administer. Fianna Fáil pledges to abolish them on its return to office. We believe that all available resources must be channelled through to the classroom and not wasted on expensive and undemocratic bureaucracies.

The Bill, on reflection, has a strong bias against denominational schools. As presently worded, it takes up a strong anti-denominational schools approach. The CPSMA stated in its submission:

The provisions of the Education Bill, 1997 would appear to impact more on denominational schools than on vocational, comprehensive or community schools. Our overall impression of the Education Bill, 1997 is that the State, through the Minister for Education, is planning to exercise a degree of control not hitherto experienced by our schools.

It is of the view that certain provisions will have the effect of giving the State an undue and unnecessary level of control over the provision, management and functioning of schools. This is contrary to the Constitution, in particular Article 42.4. It is also of the view that section 43 represents the greatest intrusion by the State into the management of schools not established by the State.

Denominational schools have been of fundamental importance to the evolution and development of education since the foundation of the State. They, too, have rights. Parents, students and the entire denominational schools' community have rights which seem to have been ignored by the Bill which, in many respects, tramples on existing rights and on the degree of local autonomy and independence these schools enjoy. It will require considerable amendment to meet the concerns of the denominational schools sector.

The Bill fails miserably to deal with the issue of disadvantage and poverty. The most fundamental objective of education as we move towards the end of the century is to eliminate all forms of disadvantage. To do so would provide children from disadvantaged and poor backgrounds with the opportunity to progress and develop to their full potential in life. Fianna Fáil accepts the fundamental point made by the CORI that the education system is failing to meet the needs of the poor. Consequently, the Bill needs to promote equality of access to, participation in and benefit from education and should be weighted in favour of the disadvantaged.

The rights of the child are not clearly defined in the Bill. This is surprising given the central importance of the child to the education debate.

We are extremely disappointed the Minister failed to use the opportunity to define properly the professional role of the teacher in the modern education system. The Bill demeans and undermines the status of the teacher in education. That is a major flaw. In addition, the school principal is given no leadership role. His or her status has been reduced to that of an employer managing staff.

We welcome the provisions in relation to parents and the statutory rights conferred on them to sit on boards of management and other authorities in education. This was signalled in the Green Paper.

The power giving the Minister the right to prescribe the core curriculum is unacceptable. It is unbelievable that she had not included an obligation to consult and agree the core curriculum with all the partners in education under the umbrella of the National Curriculum and Assessment Council.

There are no specific or detailed provisions dealing with adult and lifelong learning. This is contrary to modern realities in the education system.

The Bill is fundamentally anti-democratic and will increase in an extensive way the power of the Minister over education. As opposed to a radical devolution of authority from the top down, it reinforces and strengthens ministerial control over education. The Minister is mentioned repeatedly and retains strong power over the proposed regional education boards. The Minister will have the power to specify the maximum net expenditure which may be incurred in a financial year. Ministerial sanction will be required for the purchase, sale or leasing of land or premises. The Minister will have the power to designate for employment employees of the Minister or a vocational education committee. A board will have no choice but to accept the person or persons designated.

Alarmingly, the Minister will have the power to reject or amend an operational plan submitted by a board. The Minister will have extraordinary powers in the formulation of such a plan. When one considers that the plan will have been prepared by the director and then presented to the board, it seems the role of board members in this exercise is marginal and, at best, consultative.

Section 57 gives the Minister unlimited power in the making of regulations concerning patrons and boards of management. The Minister retains the power to appoint members to education boards. While candidates can be nominated by organisations connected with the area in question to fill vacancies, for example, teachers, parents and councillors, they will be appointed by the Minister. In essence, the Minister will appoint the entire core board in addition to the ministerial nominees. This is anything but democratic.

There are 11 national bodies representing parents in the education system. Each will have the authority to nominate a person but the Minister will have the power to appoint him or her to the board. Likewise, there are ten national bodies representing teachers and four representing principals. Each will have the right to nominate a person but the Minister will have the power to appoint him or her to the board, of which one member at least must be a principal of a school somewhere in the region covered by the board who may be nominated by a recognised trade union or staff association.

The Minister will have power in relation to the composition of boards of management. Ministerial approval will be necessary for the purchase of school buildings or the leasing of land for schools. The Minister will retain power to determine policy regional education boards, to remove functions from them, to dissolve a board and suspend a director as well as complete control over staff and staff qualifications. The Minister will determine all grants and the form in which reports are submitted by education boards. The Minister will also have the power to have reports made on education boards and to prescribe the curriculum. Consultation and agreement with the partners in education is absent from these proposals and powers enshrined in the Bill. There is no obligation on the Minister in exercising these powers to consult with the partners in education or to move forward in agreement with them.

I have outlined a long list of the Minister's powers but the list is endless and runs contrary to the principles outlined in the White Paper on Education and to the Minister's press statements on the Bill. It is fundamentally undemocratic. Despite the National Education Convention and the alleged consensus which emerged from it, I have been struck by the widespread concern and opposition among the partners in education to the establishment of regional education boards.

Fianna Fáil has long argued that the ten regional education boards proposed by the Minister are too large in geographical remit and are too expensive. The Minister has repeatedly refused to give specific information to this House on the cost of the proposed boards. Her replies to parliamentary questions on this subject have been vague and lacking in precise information. In her most recent reply, she confirmed that she has employed consultants, Deloitte & Touche, to draw up a report on the internal reorganisation of the Department and the establishment of the ten education boards. The Minister does not have any clear view as to how these boards will operate or what they will cost. She stated in her reply to a parliamentary question on 23 January 1997: "It is not possible to be precise about the cost implications of the establishment of education boards at this time". The Minister also confirmed in that reply that the establishment of education boards would take place on a phased basis with a gradual transfer of functions to the board and that this would facilitate careful appraisal of the incremental cost of the board in the context of the Education Estimates for the year in question within the overall context of the budgetary parameters approved by Government. The Minister is essentially talking about a long-term process and has studiously avoided giving any details to the Oireachtas on the cost of these boards.

The experience in Northern Ireland with the development of regional education boards does not give rise to confidence. Administrative costs alone are extremely high. Fianna Fáil's view is that regional education boards are an unnecessary intermediate tier in Irish education which will cost too much. They will not respond to local interests because they will represent large geographical areas and populations. For example, the South-East Regional Education Board will cover six local authorities, including Carlow, Kilkenny, Waterford County Borough, Waterford County, Wexford and Tipperary South Riding. How could a single board "be responsive to the diverse and sometimes conflicting needs of large urban areas and sparsely populated rural districts and also be coherent and equitable in its provisions?" asks the CSPAI?

Fianna Fáil's view is that the county unit is the most appropriate mechanism to improve the levels of co-ordination at local level and to develop co-ordinated local responses to educational needs. We favour the establishment of county education fora whereby the various partners in education would establish educational priorities in a given area and co-ordinate their implementation.

The Secondary Schools Principals' Association is concerned about the cost of establishing these boards. The association asks how the introduction of new administrative bureaucracies with all the basic requirements of office accommodation, equipment and salaries and professional administrative staff can be justified. It also asks who can justify putting precious educational funding into another layer of administration while schools are crying out for basic repairs, adequate classroom space, resources for children with special needs, science equipment or classroom materials.

The ASTI is also critical of the proposal to establish regional education boards. Its position paper states: "The wisdom of establishing in such a small nation an additional tier of administration in the form of regional education boards that are inserted between the Department of Education and the individual school boards of management is questionable". The ASTI has made a valid point that there already exists in many local communities a strong sense of identity linked to the local school. It states that the introduction of regional education boards could dilute this feeling of identity by diminishing the autonomy of the individual school and making it appear to be just another cog in a large bureaucratic machine. What is not understood by many in Irish education is the degree to which the existing system allows for a strong measure of local autonomy and decision-making at the level of the school.

There has been a history of non-interference on the part of Government with individual schools in relation to operational matters. Within the context of national guidelines, for example, schools currently have decision-making powers with regard to entry, suspension and expulsions, choice of curriculum programmes, choice of textbooks and school ethos. The Bill as currently structured takes away these powers and, under the guise of decentralisation, will create powerful regional boards and directors which will gradually weaken the current self-governing autonomy of schools.

The ASTI also states: "The history of non-interference on the part of the Government means that individual schools have retained a high level of decision-making authority, including the power to appoint staff and indeed to decide whether to close or keep open the school". The Bill involves a dilution of the power of boards of management and is a matter of great concern in that regard. Even the board of management will not have a school policy function or authority under this legislation. It will, according to the Bill, have to perform functions "in accordance with the policies determined by the education board and the Minister from time to time". Following the implementation of the Bill, boards of management will clearly have less autonomy and freedom than they currently enjoy. So much for devolution of authority.

The ASTI is also concerned about the funding issue and is sceptical about the capacity of the State to adequately fund regional education boards. In the current edition of ASTIR, it labelled the Bill a bureaucratic nightmare for schools and also suggested that the establishment of regional education boards will camouflage State shortcomings in the area of education funding generally.

On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, I want to make our position clear. We believe in devolving as much authority as possible to the local board of management. We are opposed to the establishment of regional education boards and will abolish them on return to office. The fundamental interaction in Irish education remains that between child, teacher and parent and all available resources must be directed and allocated in that direction. The elimination of inequality and disadvantage cannot wait for the establishment of regional education boards and must have first call on available resources. Regional education boards will cost too much and will take resources from the classroom. We intend to put all available resources into the classroom.

We note that the Congress of Catholic Secondary Parents Associations is also opposed to regional education boards. It accounts for 63 per cent of all students attending second level education and its views demand recognition. Its concern is that the establishment of regional education boards represents a hidden agenda by the Minister for Education to phase out voluntary secondary schools altogether. This is a most serious concern and I would appreciate it if the Minister would confirm her position on the retention of voluntary schools and her support for fostering their ongoing development.

The CPSA has consistently opposed the setting up of education boards on the grounds that they would be costly and unrepresentative because they would only have a small number of members representing parents who have the largest stake in the education system. It has also expressed its concern at the lack of any research on the costings of the proposed regional education boards and remains unconvinced that they would not represent an immense cost.

In a recent article, it highlighted the fundamentally centralised and undemocratic nature of regional education boards. Because they are so large in geographical remit and so removed from the county unit, they cannot take local interests into account. The CPSA outlined the scenario of parent representatives on a given regional education board. Two or three parent representatives would be nominated by a national association of parents and appointed by the Minister. Those few parents on, say, board ten which covers Galway, Mayo and Roscommon will have to represent up to 24,000 pupils at second level and probably a similar number at primary level. Representation will also include vocational education committee pupils. Two-thirds of the representation will include voluntary secondary schools and one-third will include vocational education committees, community and comprehensive schools, as well as the primary sector. The two or three parents on a board could represent the parents of up to 50,000 students. How will those parents ascertain the wishes of those they represent? How will they report back to the interest group? Where will they meet to prepare policy positions or to discuss education board questions before or after a meeting? Apart from travelling expenses, who will pay for the work of those parent representatives? Those are practical concerns about the operation of those boards and they merit considerable examination. I outlined them to illustrate many of the practical difficulties that will follow the enactment of this Bill.

Furthermore, the powers of the director of a new regional education board will be very significant and on a par with, if not greater than, those enjoyed by a county manager. However, the powers of board members will not be on a par with those of elected representatives to a local council. There is a clear imbalance here. If the Minister was really interested in local democracy and devolving authority, she would agree that board members and not the director should have the authority and power. The director will be as powerful as a county manager in a local authority.

Following detailed consideration of the Bill there is increasing concern about its impact on denominational schools at primary and secondary level. There is a view abroad that the new legislation together with the implementation of REBs will spell the demise of the voluntary secondary school as we know it today. As a result of the Bill the State, through the Minister for Education, will exercise a degree of control not hitherto experienced by schools. There will be a fundamental shift away from local school autonomy to the centre and the State will be the primary controlling force in education. That is the view of the CPSMA, an important partner in Irish education. It states that certain provisions of the Bill "will have the effect of giving the State an undue and unnecessary level of control over the provision, management and functioning of schools". It is its view that this was never intended under the Constitution or by the principals in the White Paper on Education. The president of the Catholic Schools Parents Association, Mr. John White, has gone on record as describing the Bill as "repugnant of voluntary education and especially to voluntary catholic education". Why are bodies like that becoming increasingly concerned about the Bill and its impact on them? A number of bodies from CORI and the Catholic Primary Management Association to the Congress of Catholic Secondary Schools Parents Association are alarmed about the impact of the Bill on their positions. A total of 63 per cent of the State's second level students attend Catholic and Protestant voluntary secondary schools. Those parents have the right to make that choice and neither the Minister nor any future Minister can deprive them of it. They have described section 43 as "the greatest intrusion by the State into the management of schools which are not established by the State".

The Bill gives extraordinary powers to the Minister to dictate the composition of school boards. It also gives the Minister power to withdraw funding from schools which do not have boards and are in conformity with the terms of the Bill. That type of dictatorship from the centre is outrageous and will be repealed by Fianna Fáil on its return to Government. We must retain the diversity in our second level education system which has grown historically. There is richness in diversity which should be promoted and nurtured. The funding arrangements for the three types of second level schools are not equal at present. It has been proven by objective studies that funding for second level voluntary schools has fallen behind over the years and that the State has not allocated sufficient resources to them. The Minister established belatedly a steering group on the funding of second level schools. That commitment was given in the White Paper more than two years ago and when the Minister came into office four years ago. However, it took four years for her to establish the group, again on the eve of a general election. She knows that any decisions arising from its recommendations will not be made prior to a general election.

At primary level the position is also unclear. Up to now various groups, including denominational groups, gaelscoileanna, multidenominational groups and so on had the right to establish primary schools where the need arose. Often it was the denominational group which provided the building and the land. Section 9 (2) (g) seems to imply that after the passage of the Bill the regional boards will be the only body with the statutory right to give recognition to any new school established and to lease any land or buildings to any person or group of persons establishing a school. I accept the point made by the CPSMA that it should be made absolutely clear that nothing in section 9 (2) (g) precludes the establishment of a school by a person or body of persons on land and buildings provided other than by lease from the education board. Otherwise it would be accepted that all future schools would be totally determined and controlled by the education boards. This theme runs through the Bill and it is something with which I have a fundamental difficulty.

The Constitution gives parents the right to choose an education for their children. Groups in society should be entitled to form or establish schools. They should be entitled to some assistance from the State, but without diktats concerning the manner in which they are established and the composition of boards of management and so forth. The State should work in partnership with those groups and various bodies, be they denominational or non-denominational. The daily reality is that the State operates in partnership with all types of interests from denominational to multi-denominational, to gaelscoileanna and so on. All the groups concerned have rights and entitlements and it would be wrong for the State to take those rights from such groups and to bring them all under the direct and total control of the State. In essence that is what is proposed in the Bill. As worded, it has serious implications for denominational schools in general. There is no democratic mandate to so dramatically and radically change denominational education. Parents have rights to send their children to schools which are denominational in character and under whose ethos parents wish to have their children educated. Many aspects of the Bill could fly in the face of the ethos of a particular denominational school. For example, the wide-ranging powers given to the Minister in relation to the prescribing of the core curriculum could be used in such a manner as to undermine the ethos of such a school. It should be made clear that no element of a core curriculum could be prescribed by a Minister which would have the effect of undermining the ethos of any school.

Section 57 gives widespread powers to the Minister in almost all matters of educational administration. The unbridled powers of the Minister could be used in the future to undermine the ethos of denominational schools. Section 46 is poorly worded and only gives schools a right to manage their affairs in accordance with the Bill. It should be amended to read that the right of schools to manage their own affairs in accordance with the Bill and with other instruments such as the deeds of trust for primary schools that have been negotiated by the Department and the various partners. It is interesting to note that the Bill makes no reference to the deeds of trust negotiated with the primary school partners. Perhaps that is because those deeds of trust are the subject of examination by the Attorney General who is determining their general legality and their constitutionality. It is extraordinary that the Minister would publish an education Bill in advance of having secure knowledge on the constitutionality of the deeds of trust which are so essential to the establishment of school boards of management and to the continuing agreement of all the school partners. Under normal circumstances a Bill would not be published until the legality of agreements that will eventually underpin the Bill have been tested. This confirms my view that the Bill has been published and is being rushed through the House with a view to the forthcoming general election. Electoral considerations are uppermost in the Minister's mind. The "i's" should be dotted and the "t's" crossed before a Bill like this should be passed through Dáil Éireann. As matters stand we do not know whether the deeds of trust negotiated by the Minister and the partners at primary level are constitutional or generally legal and applicable. Some sections of the Bill could be unconstitutional. In my view section 37 (7) dealing with the composition of school boards is unconstitutional. I do not believe that the State has the right to deprive any school of funding simply because it does not establish a board of management that is consistent with legislation introduced by the State. This is an outrageous provision which should be withdrawn forthwith.

One of the major concerns of denominational school interests is the degree to which patrons have been written out of the Bill. Adequate reference to them is absent from the Bill. The patrons who hold ultimate responsibility for the schools inevitably must have a significant role in the development of a school. The regional boards essentially reduce the status of school patrons to that of irrelevant bystanders. Occasionally the Bill refers to consultation with the patrons, but in the view of patrons that is not sufficient. The Bill could be inoperable if this issue is not resolved. CORI in its analysis of the Bill is very critical of its provisions in relation to school patrons and states:

The Bill's misrepresentation of the role of patron and its failure to take account of the consultation process leading to the White Paper are fundamental flaws. These flaws mean that the harmonisation of existing rights which the Bill was meant to enshrine has not been achieved. They also undermine the Bill's stated commitment to diversity of school types and they threaten the Bill's constitutionality."

In addition, CORI strongly criticised section 37 (7) of the Bill which deals with the freezing of funds. It argues there is a strong body of legal opinion which suggests that any legislation which gives the Minister for Education the power to require that schools be managed by a particular kind of board is unconstitutional. CORI's legal advice indicates that this proposal does not overcome the constitutional obstacle described by Farry, Whyte and others. Fianna Fáil's legal advice is similar and we believe, like others, that the imposition of boards of management as envisaged in the Bill would be likely to be found unconstitutional if it were challenged after its enactment.

It was agreed in the White Paper that school plans would require the agreement or the approval of the patrons on matters concerning the school's values and ethos. According to CORI, provision for approval of plans is necessary to avoid situations where, for example, a school plan proposed to adopt a policy or practice which would be at variance with the core values of the school.

We regret the degree to which the Bill undermines the status of the teacher and the school principal. This Bill represents a change in the administrative framework. Fianna Fáil suggests there are more radical ways of changing the educational system. For example, a national educational psychological service could be established quite easily by taking it out of the Department and establishing an independent board. The conduct and management of national State examinations could be taken out of the Department——

Ms Bhreathnach

Legislation is needed.

Mr. Martin

——and put under the National Curriculum and Assessment Council. Fianna Fáil believes there are other more urgent priorities in Irish education demanding change. We want the younger generation to be in a position to embrace the technological revolution. We also believe that the needs of the disadvantaged and the socially excluded cannot await the establishment of regional education boards. We oppose this Bill for those fundamental reasons. We will oppose it tooth and nail on Committee Stage and in the Seanad.

Ms Keogh

It is good to have this opportunity to discuss national education policy. I agree there are many organisations that are still considering their responses to this Bill and feel more time could have been allowed to consider those responses. I regret that and it is unfortunate that a longer period was not allowed to those organisations which are still seeking meetings with various spokespersons. I have met many of them and have more to meet.

Education is one of the most important functions of Government. Government funds the education system and decides to a large extent how that system is organised and operated and how resources are allocated. Government decides what is taught and how students' performance is assessed. Education is one of the single largest calls on the public purse. In the current year, the Exchequer will provide some £2.3 billion to fund the education system, which represents about one sixth of total Government spending on services. Taking all these factors into account, it is strange that the subject of education is not discussed more fully and frequently by this House.

Our education system has, as the Minister said, by and large served this country well. There have been huge improvements over the past 75 years and the vast majority of Irish students can now obtain a school education that is as good as that in most European countries and better than many. However, the system is still faced with major problems. An Education Bill, particularly one as large and extensive as this one, with more than 60 sections running to 45 pages, should deal with these problems.

The Bill is a disappointment and does not deal with the major issues. It is concerned almost wholly with bureaucratic structures and has little or nothing to say about the quality of education or how it can be improved. The main purpose of this Bill is the establishment of the regional education boards. At a rough count, something like three in every four sections in this Bill are concerned with the new boards in one shape or form.

There are, of course, problems in our educational system and I hope to deal with some of them later. However, I do not believe that problems as regards structures and decision making will be solved by creating new quangos. People may be clamouring for a new prisons board to sort out the dreadful mess in our jail system or a new courts board to streamline the management of the courts but they are not shouting from the rooftops for the establishment of a network of regional education boards in the form proposed by the Minister. In fact, many of the partners in education have been highly critical of these boards. All are concerned about the directing of resources into administration and bureaucracy rather than education where it is needed.

The Department of Education may never have set the world on fire as far as innovation and efficiency are concerned. However, any faults in the administrative system could be solved by ensuring that the Department was better managed. I say this in light of the fact that the Minister has engaged consultants to examine the workings of the Department. This is not justification for establishing a whole new network of State boards.

Mrs. Thatcher was the pioneer of quangos in Britain. Her philosophy seemed to be that power should be concentrated as far as possible in the hands of unaccountable and unelected public bodies. Her philosophy also ensured that the bodies provided marvellous opportunities for political patronage and that the ideal person to sit on the board of such a body was what she termed "one of us". We are in danger of creating a bureaucratic nightmare with this legislation. It is not just the boards that will come into existence. Section 28 provides for the establishment of committees that will operate under the boards. How are we managing to educate anybody without these committees or quangos? If the Government is really serious about the devolution of responsibilities from the centre, it must look at the existing local authorities.

We have a long established tradition of democratically elected local government. Over the years, powers have been stripped away from local councils so we are left with local administration rather than local democracy. Instead of giving new powers to councils, however, we seem to favour the quango approach every time. We have separate local and regional bureaucracies for tourism, industrial development, health services and vocational education. In other countries most, if not all, of these services are controlled by democratically elected local government. Switzerland and Denmark are good examples of how real devolution from the centre to the regions and local communities can be managed successfully.

However, we must ask whether this Bill and these boards are really about devolution. We should consider the situation when the regional education boards are up and running. Some 90 per cent of spending at first and second level goes on the remuneration of teachers and former teachers.

Teachers and how they are paid, are the critical element in the management of our educational system. This area will continue to be the preserve of the Minister for Education even after the boards are established. The Minister will be responsible for the level of teachers' salaries and for dealing with teachers' pay claims and pensions. The Minister will also be responsible for determining the number of hours per week teachers work, deciding teachers' holiday entitlements and terms and conditions of employment. I am not saying that the Minister should not be responsible for these matters. However, what is the point in establishing these new boards if the Minister will still run the whole show from Marlboro Street In any event, the new boards will be totally dependent on the Minister for all their funding. Effectively, the boards will spend the money they get from the Minister in the way that the Minister tells them. That is not devolution; it is a sham. It is peculiar that in a Bill which is supposed to be about devolution, the word "Minister" appears no less than 225 times. I hope I have got the count right.

Ms Bhreathnach

I am glad the Deputy has nothing else to do.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Can we have a recount?

Ms Keogh

The Minister will not give any clear indication of what the new structures will cost. The Minister for Finance has refused to reveal to the Dáil the internal tentative costings prepared by the Department of Finance. Experience in Ireland has shown that bureaucracies do not come cheap. Once established, they have a tendency to grow and their budgets have a tendency to expand. Various estimates of what the boards will cost have been aired, with suggestions ranging from £20 million to £50 million a year. The Minister should use this debate to clarify the position on funding.

How much will these boards cost? The Minister has continually stonewalled on this. For months we have consistently tried to obtain the figure from the Minister and the Minister for Finance. All we get is a fudged answer that they will be gradually introduced according to budgetary parameters. Whatever the figure, I question whether this is the manner in which we should spend our education budget. Can we afford the luxury of regional education boards? We know that hardly a week passes without some new horror story emerging of rat-infested primary schools in need of refurbishment or replacement. If the funds to rectify these very serious problems are limited, how can money be found to set up this new layer of bureaucracy?

According to the Bill the first object of each education board is to ensure that an appropriate level and quality of education is available to each person within its region. Has that not been the case anyway? Surely the Department has not been idle for the past 75 years. Is the Minister admitting that her Department has been deficient in its responsibilities in this respect?

The education boards might make some sense if they formed part of some coherent strategy for regional devolution but they do not. None of the so-called regionalisation initiatives of recent years fits in with others.

I will give the House an example. The counties of Cavan and Monaghan are combined, for industrial development purposes, with Louth to form the north-east region. For tourism purposes they are combined with Donegal, Leitrim and Sligo to form the north-west region. For regional authority purposes they are combined with all of the aforementioned counties to form a so-called Border region stretching from the northern tip of Donegal to Drogheda. For vocational education purposes the two counties are entirely separate entities, each having its own vocational education committee. The Minister proposes to include Cavan and Monaghan in the north-eastern region education board. This unlikely creation will stretch from the Dublin suburbs at Clonee to the Fermanagh border at Swanlinbar. If we are serious about regional government, about devolution, that is not the way to go about it.

What of the vocational education committees? What kind of administrative logic is to be found in leaving these in place alongside the proposed new boards? Can the Minister point to any other country with two parallel sets of administration for governing education? No matter how one views them, these new education boards do not fit into any kind of coherent system of local or regional administration; they will have the appearance of devolution and decentralisation but without their substance. They will have nothing to do with democracy or equality, rather everything to do with the State under the guise of a regional framework, doing to education what it has done already to local government. They will be about as parent-controlled as health boards are patient-controlled, as independent of Marlborough Street as the average urban district council is independent of the Custom House. To whom will they be answerable?

I wonder where the Fine Gael Party stands in all of this. The Taoiseach pointed out recently that Fine Gael in Government had no policies of its own any more. Is this another example of that syndrome? Since I cannot recall any Fine Gael candidate in the last election calling for the establishment of regional education boards, I wonder has that party fully signed up to this scheme. I know there is resistance within its membership to these proposals. I would be very surprised to hear Fine Gael Members champion in any way the establishment of these regional education boards.

I shall refer to some specific problematical sections of the Bill, to which Deputy Martin has already referred. This Bill represents not only a bureaucratic nightmare but a constitutional mine-field. Sections 35 to 38, inclusive, deal with schools. Any Bill that gives a Minister power to demand that schools be managed by a certain type of board will be deemed by many people to be open to constitutional challenge. I refer in particular to section 37 (7) which provides for the freezing of funds, although without withdrawing recognition from those schools that fail to comply with a ministerial order on boards of management, which has been the subject of legal opinion. That legal opinion stated that the imposition of boards of management, as envisaged in the Bill, if challenged, would be likely to be found unconstitutional and that the entire Bill could fall if referred by the President to the Supreme Court.

Section 39 deals with the inspectorate. I welcome the proposals to put the inspectorate on a statutory basis. Given that the present service is overburdened and under-resourced, how does the Minister envisage this working? It appears that this section is largely aspirational. Giving the inspectorate powers without resources is nonsensical.

The subject of school patrons is very problematical. Like all other parties in this House, the Progressive Democrats are committed to the principle of pluralism in this society and to the maintenance of diversity in our education system. Section 41 decrees that, where a new school is being established by a group, that group, in its choice of patron, must receive ministerial approval. I am not sure I see the logic behind that provision. For instance, if a group of parents comes together to form a new school and decides it wants a local Church of Ireland archbishop to be its patron, surely that is sufficient. Why should that require ministerial approval? How will the Minister decide whether a particular patron is or is not suitable? What criteria, if any, are in place for determining the suitability of school patrons? Will there be a system of appeals to allow people, if they wish, to challenge the Minister? As the House will be aware, the Bill deals only with the registration of patrons. The Minister should go further and define their role and rights.

There is yet another area where this Bill will be open to constitutional challenge. Article 42 of the Constitution states:

The State acknowledges that the primary and natural educator of the child is the Family and guarantees to respect the inalienable right and duty of parents to provide, according to their means, for the religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children.

In addition Articles 44.2.4, 44.2.5 and 44.2.6 are also relevant. Subject to compliance with the requirement that the State, as guardian of the common good, is obliged to ensure that children receive that certain minimum education, it follows that questions of curriculum are matters entirely for parental choice. The term "certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social" referred to in Article 42.3.2 applies to all children. It also follows that the State cannot use its obligation to ensure the receipt of such minimum education as an excuse to dictate the core curriculum of secondary education unless it acknowledges that it is obliged to provide that education for every child. For instance, the reference to "minimum education" cannot authorise the State to determine the syllabus for teaching history to fifth and sixth year secondary students, nor can it possibly be used to determine the syllabus of subjects in respect of which a parent or student has any choice. It would be utterly illogical to say that a child had an option whether to study, say, German or English but that the Minister could dictate the core curriculum for either subject, even though the education system did not require a child to study both.

In the School Attendance Bill, 1942 case, reported in 1943 Irish Reports, at page 334, the Supreme Court had the following to say:

The State is entitled to require that children shall receive a certain minimum education. So long as parents apply this general standard of education we are of the opinion that the manner in which it is being given and received is entirely a matter for the parents and is not a matter in respect of which the State under the Constitution is entitled to interfere.

It is abundantly clear, therefore, that the State, in general terms, is not entitled to prescribe the core syllabus for subjects to be taught in schools except in so far as that is necessary to comply with its obligation to ensure a certain minimum education for children, which must be of general application. The State has no general right to prescribe syllabi for subjects at secondary level in optional subjects, and has no right to prescribe subjects as non-optional unless it can so justify by reference to the "certain minimum education" provisions of the Constitution.

Article 42.4 of the Constitution states:

The State shall provide for free primary education and shall endeavour to supplement and give reasonable aid to private and corporate educational initiative, and, when the public good requires it, provide other educational facilities or institutions with due regard, however, for the rights of parents, especially in the matter of religious and moral formation.

That raises a further question as to whether the State is entitled to distinguish between schools which comply with a State curriculum, envisaged in the Bill as drafted, and other schools, and is entitled to exclude all schools that do not strictly comply with the State curriculum from receipt of State aid. The legal view is that the Constitution does not give a mandate for such distinction. There are grave constitutional difficulties with this Bill.

I referred to some of the major problems confronting our education system. The first issue is educational disadvantage. I would have thought this should be at the top of the Minister's list of priorities but it does not merit a mention in the Bill. The full extent of this problem has not been adequately measured. However, there are tens of thousands of children, mainly in the more deprived urban communities, whose needs are not being met by the system. Many of them drop out in their early teens. Others persevere longer but, ultimately, leave without formal qualifications. In some cases, they will not even have succeeded in mastering basic skills in literacy and numeracy. These young people are part of what can be termed a self perpetuating underclass. Their parents got nothing out of the educational system; their grandparents got even less. They are locked into a cycle that will take them from school to the dole. They graduate within a year from short-term unemployment to long-term unemployment and, ultimately, to virtual unemployability. This is not just a tragedy for them and their families, but for us all. Unemployability and social exclusion leads to anti-social behaviour in many cases. The drop outs of today often become the criminals of tomorrow because they have no stake in society and feel abandoned. In stark economic terms it only costs £50 per week to keep an individual in primary school while it costs £900 per week to keep one in Mountjoy.

There is no easy solution to this problem but it is still the duty of Government to endeavour to solve it. Early intervention is the key. By the time a typical child from a seriously disadvantaged background enters the school system at the age of four, it is probably too late. That child will be deficient in basic language and communication skills and will have spent its early years in a home where educational values were not regarded as important. The first three years are vital and, if they have been lost, it is asking a great deal of our schools to make up for them.

Clearly we need a national educational strategy of early intervention. Proper support must be provided to disadvantaged families to cope with the education of their children during the first three years, the critical pre-school period. Successful and cost-effective programmes have been developed in other countries to deal with this problem but we appear not to have a coherent approach to it. New legislation is not required in this area. The Minister would be far better advised spending even a relatively small amount of money dealing with this problem than blowing millions on more bureaucracy.

Another issue of major importance to our educational system is the teaching of the Irish language. The Bill does not refer to this issue. Apart from a fairly cursory mention in the White Paper on education policy, the Minister has had little to say about the way in which the Irish language is taught in our schools. My party recently published a discussion document on this subject. We showed that, while successive generations of Irish people have undergone 12 or more years' instruction in Irish, the vast majority of our adult population still do not have a reasonable command of the language.

A survey carried out by Bord na Gaeilge, the State body charged with the promotion of the language, found that more than three quarters of Irish adults admitted to having little or no ability to speak the first official language of the State. The effort and the resources that go into the teaching of Irish are remarkable. We estimate that the average student going through our educational system as far as the leaving certificate will have studied Irish for more than 2,000 hours during that time. This is roughly equivalent to studying the language on a full time basis for 25 hours per week for two years, yet many young people leave our schools with less ability in Irish than in modern continental languages such as French and German.

The general lack of fluency in the language is clearly reflected in support for the Irish language media. RTE Radio One broadcasts the news every day in Irish and English; it is the same news but not the same audience. The number of people listening to the news in English is 25 times greater than the number listening to it in Irish. A huge amount of wasted effort goes into teaching Irish in our schools. If people can get a basic knowledge of Spanish from tapes in 12 months, why can they not get a basic knowledge of Irish in 12 years at school? Will the Minister outline her thinking on this subject and indicate whether her Department is working on any plans to deal with this problem?

Another major issue to be confronted is the academic bias of our educational system. Irish schools do a very good job of preparing students for the leaving certificate. The leaving certificate is heavily geared towards preparing students for third level. However, I am not sure our system serves the needs of students equally well. It does not do enough to help people who want to move straight from school into the workplace. Many of the new factories setting up around the country, particularly in the computer industry, find that many 18 year olds are ill-equipped to move from the classroom to the factory floor. FÁS, thus, effectively second-guesses the educational system by running courses for school-leavers. In many cases it teachers people skills they should have learned in school.

I refer to modern languages. We have tele-sales and computer support operations locating in Ireland which require young people with a good speaking knowledge of French, German, Spanish or Italian, yet many young people have to undergo additional courses in these languages to enable them to cope with the needs of the workplace. We should look more closely at the curriculum, particularly for second level schools. It is important that our children receive a good liberal education but we will do our students a great disservice if we fail to equip them with the knowledge and skills necessary to survive and prosper in today's workplace.

Curriculum development is a very important subject as is that of parents associations. One might expect issues such as these to form the meat of any major legislation in the field of education. Instead, in the Bill they are relegated to a group of sections at the end styled "Miscellaneous" but as framed may be unconstitutional.

The main thrust of this Bill is to establish regional education boards. A great deal of time and effort will go into setting up these boards. They will swallow up a great deal of scarce resources when they are established but I fail to see how they will make any difference to the quality of education delivered in our schools. Setting up regional boards should not be our top priority in education. Instead, we should focus on the real issues. What can we do to tackle the problem of educational disadvantage? What can we do in terms of curriculum development? What strategies can be put in place to improve the teaching of Irish? What is the best way to manage the decline in pupil numbers that will be a central feature of the education system in the years ahead? These are the issues the Minister and her Department should address. This Bill should be the framework for the future of Irish education. Instead, it is a bureaucratic and constitutional minefield. It will do nothing for the future of our children.

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Tá áthas orm go bhfuil deis agam labhairt ar an mBille seo anocht. Ba mhaith liom comhgháirdeas a ghabháil leis an Aire a chaith an-chuid ama, ní ag caint ach ag éisteacht le han-chuid daoine a raibh suim acu san Oideachas. Sa deireadh d'éirigh léi Bille a thabhairt isteach, rud nar éirigh le h-éinne roimpi.

Os rud é gur chaith mé i bhfad níos mó blianta ag múineadh ná mar a chaithfidh mé mar Theachta Dála tá tuairimí faoi leith agam ar an oideachas agus déanfaidh mé iad sin a léiriú sul i bhfad.

Rinne an Teachta Helen Keogh tagairt do labhairt na Gaeilge agus do na fáthanna nach labhrann daoine Gaeilge. Sin ceist an-tábhachtach. Cén fáth nach bhfuil níos mó daoine ag labhairt Gaeilge sa Dáil? Chaith gach éinne sa Dáil go leor blianta ag foghlaim Gaeilge — tá céimeanna ag an-chuid acu — ach ní labhrann siad Gaeilge sa Teach cé nach dtógfadh sé mórán trioblóide orthy sin a dhéanamh. Déarfainn féin gur easpa suime atá i gceist. Ní h-aon mhaith a bheith ag caint faoin nGaeilge muna bhfuilimid toilteanach an teanga a labhairt. Sin fadhb a bhaineann leis an tír ar fad. Níl go leor suime ag daoine an Ghaeilge a labhairt. Níorbh ghá ach beagán cleachtadh a dhéanamh agus bheadh Gaeilge ag gach éinne sa Teach seo, déarfainn. B'fhearr liomsa dá mbeadh i bhfad níos mó Gaeilge le cloisint.

Nuair a bhí mé ag múineadh chreid mé nach raibh aon suim sa Ghaeilge ag na daoine a bhí í gceannas ar an tír, fiú amháin sa Roinn Oideachais, mar níor chuala mé daoine ag labhairt Gaeilge sa Dáil. Fós ní minic a labhrann daoine Gaeilge sa Dáil agus ba chóir go mbeadh iarrachtaí níos fearr déanta. Le cúnamh Dé áfach tiocfaidh feabhas ar an scéal agus beidh deáshampla á thabhairt sa Dáil. Tá mé cinnte go labhróidh an chéad chainteoir eile Gaeilge.

I congratulate the Minister on talking and listening to people, producing a Green Paper and several White Papers. My ambition before I leave the Dáil is that some day I will be called to a higher authority and produce a brown paper. The Minister said there has been little legislation in the education area. While some groups might regret that, it is a marvellous tribute to the educational system, including the Department which is freely criticised by so many people. It is also a marvellous tribute to teachers. Such people would have remained at school beyond the age of 14 or 15 years.

We should never decry our wonderful education system. I was a teacher in the United States long before I entered politics and I was shocked at the first lecture I attended in a university there when the lecturer explained that he had to teach his first year students to read. There were policemen with guns in schools. Ireland is far removed from that but we have a habit of knocking ourselves. We should be proud of our education system and particularly of our teachers. Even in this mad age of commercialism, many of them spend extra time helping students to gain skills in sport, acting, singing and other areas. They do so willingly and we should do everything possible to ensure that is recognised and nothing is done which gives them the impression that their work is not appreciated.

The difficulty with producing education Bills is that everybody is an expert on education. Everybody received a smidgen of education, whether they went willingly to school or cried all the time they were there, and they know what school and teachers are like. Depending on their luck, they either have a good or bad impression which automatically prejudices their views. No matter what is contained in an education Bill, it involves experts or self appointed experts. The type of expert is immaterial because both express their views freely. It also involves parents and if a school does not have the goodwill of parents, where can it go? Parents should feel free to talk to teachers, and particularly principals because they are more inclined to talk to the principal than others, about matters which concern them. If there is a spirit of co-operation between parents and teachers, the school will be successful.

Nothing is as bad as ill-will between parents and teachers because, apart from anything else, parents are so helpful to schools. Many parents organised functions to provide equipment when the Department did not have the finance, or occasionally the goodwill, to do it. Some of us were lucky enough to have an overhead projector before there was one in the Department of Education. It was wonderful to see the look of shock on the inspector's face when he saw it. However, such co-operation is to everybody's benefit. Where parents are prepared to help out and teachers are willing to co-operate, as they should be, the children are the real beneficiaries. This is the only thing that counts in education because if students do not gain from something, we are all wasting our time. I am glad the role of parents is recognised in the Bill.

I am worried about section 54. I received submissions from the ASTI, principals and a former manager. They all have their views but I am concerned about the provision which states that a parents' association may advise a principal or the board on any matter relating to a school and the principal or board shall have regard to any such advice. I have no difficulty if that is a generalisation to ensure parents feel free to make suggestions to a principal or a board. However, I am concerned about the exact meaning of the phrase "shall have regard to any such advice". If people are considering whether a door should be locked permanently or whether French should be taken in the morning rather than the evening, a principal will usually listen to their views. However, it is different if it involves compulsion.

Section 54(2)(b) states that a parents' association may "adopt a programme of activities which will promote the involvement of parents, in consultation with the Principal, in the operation of the school". I am not sure how binding that provision will be but, regardless of their willingness and helpfulness, parents are like the rest of us and they all have different views. Some think sport is more important than education while others think teaching a foreign language is more important than teaching Irish. Others think everything should be done through Irish and more think Irish dancing should be part of the curriculum. The difficulty is that parents, with the best will in the world, could find themselves talking to a principal whose head is spinning because he is wondering how he can accommodate all views. The provision may just give parents the right to air their views, which I accept, but a principal should not feel tied by 14 different suggestions from 14 different parents.

A principal's role can be difficult. Nowadays most principals have secretaries but if I still had the privilege of being a full-time principal of an eight teacher school, I would object strongly to presenting a report to the board of management in Irish and English. It is a fine suggestion but principals must deal with interruptions from parents, people selling books and other inquiries. I recall one occasion when there was a knock on the classroom door. When I went out, there was a man selling encyclopaedias, although they were not called encyclopaedias rather "aids to learning". I was only back in the classroom when there was another knock and there was another man selling encyclopaedias for a different company. Such interruptions do not help teachers to keep cool and continue teaching mathematics or other subjects.

If one is a serving principal, it is difficult to deal with such matters and do what one wants to do, which is teach. Unless facilities exist, I would not go overboard about asking principals to produce reports. The board may be asked to do it, but the principals will end up doing it. The previous speaker referred to Fine Gael people but I am making these points as a teacher who believes in the practicality of education. All the theories about power mean nothing to me because we should do whatever is good for students.

The regional boards, like the health boards, are a bone of contention and there are different views regarding the work they carry out. However, there is no doubt that they have the advantage of knowing the areas with which they deal and they are more accessible. The Minister should listen carefully because if she sited the headquarters of the regional board for the south east in Carlow——

Miss Coughlan

I wonder why the Deputy advocates that proposal?

Mr. Browne

(Carlow-Kilkenny):——it would be much more accessible to those in Kilkenny than is Dublin, for example. With its regional college, St. Patrick's College which has links with University College Cork and London University and Benekerry National School, where I spent many years as a teacher, Carlow is an ideal site for the headquarters of the regional board. It is time the town was recognised as being able to make a contribution. That might be the most important statement I will make during my contribution.

I am concerned about the size of the regional boards. I understand provision is made for a minimum of 36 members on each board. I do not know how practical this will prove to be. I served on a health board and I am not certain that boards of that size are what we require. Provision is made for six public representatives to sit on each board but, again, I am not sure about the logic behind this.

Under the Second Schedule, those not eligible to serve on an education board include: an "undischarged bankrupt"; a person who "within the immediately preceding three years has, under the protection or procedure of a court, made a composition or arrangement with creditors"; or someone who "within the preceding five years has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment". That would be acceptable but it is also stated that a person who "is for the time being entitled under the Standing Orders of either House of the Oireachtas to sit therein, or... is for the time being a member of the European Parliament". Therefore, Members of the Oireachtas and the European Parliament are included with other undesirables and I can only presume that the Minister was not involved in drafting the Second Schedule.

It was reported on a radio programme this afternoon that 22 per cent of sitting Dáil Deputies have experience in the area of education. It would be apt if those with knowledge of that subject were not disqualified from membership of the regional boards. This is not the only Bill on which arguments of this type have arisen and someone should communicate with the civil servants or those in the Bills Office who rule out Members as undesirables.

The role and statutory position of inspectors was referred to but I could not care less if they were left to hand from windowsills in this regard. What do these people do? On previous occasions I described inspectors as the bane of my life. They interrupted people trying to do their best for pupils because they appropriated silly ideas from some foreign source which they believed could be applied throughout the education system. They claimed they could assess an entire class within three minutes but were ignorant of whether certain pupils had eaten breakfast that morning. The role of inspectors should have practical application.

I note that, under the Bill, inspectors are given much responsibility, including providing advice to parents' councils. However, I believe they will merely visit schools and not achieve anything useful. Inspectors, particularly in the case of young teachers, should serve as advisers. For example, they could provide help to a teacher whom the principal of a school believed was in need of it rather than finding fault and trying to throw their weight around. In fairness to current inspectors, I should state that I am speaking from experience of the bad old days when people obtained tremendous pleasure from insulting teachers. These individuals were once described as teachers who tired of classwork, came to prefer paperwork and eventually adopted the role of being unhelpful.

Inspectors seem to have been given many responsibilities under the Bill and I would not like to see them removed from their main role, namely, helping teachers who may experience difficulty with discipline or methods of teaching. Adequate emphasis is no longer placed on modhanna múinte. In the past a teacher would be taken apart following a sample lesson. Outside the classroom, the inspector would say "Bhí an ceacht sin go maith, a Sheáin, ach..." and that "ach" covered a multitude of faults. Whatever sense of pride one had on leaving the room, one had very little by the time he had finished. This had a great effect and illustrated that, when teaching, one is not giving a lecture. I will not refer to lecturers because some of them lack the ability to either lecture or teach. At primary and secondary level, it is vital that teachers use the correct educational methods.

I am concerned about the powers granted to the boards to acquire land or buildings and lease them out. What will happen to rural schools in this regard? If a parish wants to build a school will it be at the mercy of a regional board which might decide that it would be better to site the school in the nearest town? Can a parish apply to a regional board to have a new school built in its locality or will the board of education simply purchase land, construct a school and lease it? That may not be suitable for the people seeking such a school.

If a town is engaged in a process of expansion and the board of management establishes a school structure, what would happen if three different groups, a non-demoninational section of the community, the Church of Ireland and the Roman Catholic Church, applied to be patrons? I have been asked this theoretical question but I do not know the answer to it.

I could speak for the remainder of the evening if I were to enter into the detail of the Bill. I welcome the legislation and I realise that, like the curate's egg, it has good and bad points. Objections to the Bill will emerge during the debate but I do not accept Deputy Martin's assertion that the Minister is rushing the legislation through before the general election. This Bill has undergone a lengthy gestation period and I compliment the Minister on its introduction because she must deal with Members, including myself, who believe they are experts on education.

Miss Coughlan

I enjoyed Deputy Browne's contribution. Perhaps if the Minister listened to what he said——

Ms Bhreathnach

I heard him.

Miss Coughlan

——there would be no need to introduce this Bill. It could be placed on the scrap heap. Deputy Browne provided practical examples of what it is like to be a teacher. I have never been a teacher and I am no expert on education. However, I listen to other people's opinions and I believe I could provide a more practical perception of education than a theory of it.

When the Minister introduced this Bill today, she spoke about the principle of partnership. That is laudable but is it possible to implement it? She also mentioned the three words on which the Labour Party will hang itself — openness, transparency and accountability. Those are also laudable but they have nothing to do with this Bill.

If the Minister visited any of the 4,000 primary and second level schools and told the students, teachers, parents, principals, boards of management and anyone involved in education that this House would spend four and a half hours today discussing this Bill, that we would probably spend 30 hours discussing Committee Stage — we spent 22 hours discussing Committee Stage of the Universities Bill — and that the Seanad would spend a further 30 hours discussing it, they would be shocked because education is the Cinderella of official concerns. However, they would also be delighted to hear what we have to say.

If the Minister asked these people what they expect from this legislation, they would say new resources and a proper input in education. The Minister will have to spend a further £5 million or £6 million, if not £50 million, implementing this legislation, although she has access to the largest education budget of almost £2.3 billion. Every teacher and lay person would expect to get proper school buildings, remedial teachers, access to psychological services, new school books, a new curriculum, computers in primary schools, more career guidance teachers in second level schools, more music in schools, access to sports halls, an escort service for children with special needs and better school transport so that they could get rid of buses which were bought in the 1960s but which look like they were bought in the 1920s.

If people sat in the public gallery they would hear what we will do. We will establish regional education boards, recognise schools for the purposes of public funding and establish an inspectorate on a statutory basis. If Deputy Browne became Minister for Education, God help the cigire. We will also provide for the establishment, composition and functions of boards of management of schools, establish the role of parents' associations, allow appeals by students or their parents and provide for the making of regulations by the Minister. These people would say we have three heads because we are doing nothing about education.

Ms Bhreathnach

It is about legislation.

Miss Coughlan

We are legislators but these people would tell us we do not know what we are doing. That is the biggest criticism of politicians over recent years.

The Minister knows I am opposed to the establishment of regional education boards because there is no need for them. I am sure she receives millions of letters every day asking her for money for other educational needs. The child must benefit, not bureaucracy.

The Minister wants to establish ten education regions. I attended a selection convention on Sunday and the two parishes of Gweedore and the Rosses could not agree on who to select as a candidate for the general election. How will the people of County Donegal, County Leitrim and County Sligo agree when they all have different priorities and needs, although they are in the same profession?

Ms Bhreathnach

It is called leadership.

Miss Coughlan

Leadership will depend on how much the Minister lets go.

Ms Bhreathnach

Responsibilities and roles.

Miss Coughlan

Section 9 provides for the objectives and functions of an education board. Section 9(1)(a) states: "to ensure that there is made available to each person living within that region an appropriate level and quality of education, other than university or third level education, to meet the needs of that person". I am delighted that is included, but how will we meet the needs of every person? This will be a minefield because every person who goes to pre-school or primary or second level school has a different need. As a recent court case showed, many children's needs are not being met. Many children have, or feel they have, special needs. It will be difficult to amend section 9 (1) (a).

The Minister is promoting parental choice. I have no problem with that but there must also be access where the patron allows a pupil to move from one school to another, although this will lead to school transport problems. Creevy National School, for example, is a popular choice for parents. Children attend it from the catchment area which is not perceived to be the school's catchment area. However, the Minister will not provide for an extension to the school. I do not know how the Minister can encourage parental choice if she does not provide proper accommodation.

The Minister also mentioned the functions of the education board as regards the planning and co-ordination of education. Section 9(2)(a)(i) states: "the provision of primary and post-primary education in its region, including in so far as is practicable, education through Irish". That must be amended to read: "including education through Irish". There are at least six members of Donegal vocational education committee who represent the Gaeltacht, including the parents' representative. Many of the TDs and councillors have a great interest in the Irish language. We promote Irish and make an effort to ensure that people obtain a proper education through the language. There are two small schools in Ballinamore and Aranmore island which have blossomed and made a wonderful contribution to the promotion of teaching through Irish. It took a lot to convince those on the other side of the House that we should have these schools.

It is raiméis for the Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht to tell the House that he will solve everything by establishing a sub-committee. That is an insult to the people of the Gaeltacht. If regional education boards are not going to be introduced then we have to look at the concerns of na scoileanna lán Gaeleacha agus faoi fadhbanna Gaeltachta.

Section 17 relates to membership of a local authority. I do not know who wrote this section but it should be deleted. I cannot see why a person employed by a regional education board should not be allowed to be a member of a local authority. Councillors do not make much money. However, this Bill stipulates that people will have to obtain special leave before they can become a member of a local authority. No one will leave a permanent job in a regional education board to become a councillor. We should not prevent anyone from being a member of a local authority. A similar stipulation was removed from a recent local government Act and certain people who work for county councils can now put their names forward for local government.

Section 18 refers to the transfer to staff. There is much talk of consultation with staff. However, I see little evidence of this. Section 12 of the Regional Technical Colleges Act should be incorporated into this Bill. It is unfair to staff who work in other institutions who are not consulted. This is a dictatorial element and I hope the Minister will consider introducing an amendment with regard to the transfer of staff. This is important because these people have made a contribution to the running of educational establishments, for which they deserve recognition.

Section 37(5) relates to annual school funding by vocational education committees. Members of vocational education committees and those who teach in the vocational sector are disappointed and disillusioned because they believe they will be thrown on the scrap heap. I understand why they feel this way. The Minister said that, due to school accommodation needs, she would amalgamate towns and counties. However, everything else is in limbo. The only way for the Minister to remove vocational education committees is to starve them of all power. That will be achieved through this legislation.

The Minister stated that the education boards will now provide support services to schools. If this is so there is no need for vocational education committees. Similarly, if there is no flexibility allowed in the administration of school funds there is no need for vocational education committees. We have always been able to assess the needs of our sector yet there is no mention of this. Section 5 will simply say "there is your money, away you go". There is no flexibility and we will be given no say in the running of our schools. That is an insult.

The Minister stated that it will be the function of the board of management to appoint a principal. I do not know why this is included. Section 48(9) states: "This section will not apply to teachers or other staff of a school which is established and maintained by a vocational education committee". Why is this introduced with regard to teachers and not principals? The Minister is on a suicide mission if she differentiates between the methods of appointing a principal and teachers. This is an insult to those who will be either principals or teachers. I hope this is a mistake but, if it is not, why has it been introduced?

The inspectorate should be on a statutory basis. However, we do not have enough cigirí and their functions have not been properly defined. One set of inspectors will be answerable to a regional education board, the other to the Minister. This is a mish-mash which will get us nowhere.

The Minister also said that inspectors will be involved in the psychological assessment of children. With all due respect to inspectors, this will be ineffective unless the Minister appoints educational psychologists as cigirí. There is one educational psychologists between three counties, including Donegal, in my area. If a statutory inspectorate is to be introduced, there will have to be enough of them for every subject at primary and secondary level and they will have to support teachers rather than being dictatorial. A number of other issues not covered by this legislation must be looked at. The Bill will have to be amended, as was the Universities Bill.

If good legislation is to be introduced, there should at least be a solid basis for Second Stage. This is not a good basis for the education of young people. When people read this legislation they will see there is nothing in it except more bureaucracy. We do not know how much this will cost. The Minister is rushing legislation through so that during the general election she can say the Labour Party introduced education legislation and the other parties did not. The Minister should reconsider and go back to the drawing board with this legislation.

Mr. McGrath

I remind Deputy Coughlan that child psychologists are recruited as inspectors in the Department so they are covered by this section.

Miss Coughlan

They are like corncrakes. We have not seen many of them.

Cecilia Keaveney

There are none in Donegal.

Mr. McGrath

I will not criticise the inspectorate as severely as Deputy Browne did, as I will be going before the public and could be returning to the jurisdiction of that inspectorate in the classroom.

I compliment the Minister on bringing forward this Bill. It is a tremendous piece of work. Although I have some questions about it, I recognise that it was badly needed. The Minister's achievements in having funding increased for education should be mentioned. She has appointed extra remedial primary teachers. That area was a major problem when I first entered this House and now virtually every school has the services of a remedial teacher.

Miss Coughlan

Deputy McGrath will have to become a Minister.

Ms Bhreathnach

Donegal must be the most educationally disadvantaged county.

Miss Coughlan

It produces good Deputies.

Mr. McGrath

Resources are targeted towards the disadvantaged and, as well as no fees, there are grants for students studying abroad. That should be acknowledged.

This Bill charts the future for education and there are very important provisions in it. The issue of boards of management is one. That concept was first introduced by a Fine Gael-Labour Government from 1982 to 1987. We would all like to establish schools from a "green field" basis as we could then lay down the rules for every school to have a board of management. However, there are 4,000 schools around the country, many of which have different backgrounds. There are 3,200 primary schools that are either Catholic, non-Catholic or non-denominational. There are secondary schools that are vocational, community colleges, voluntary secondary and community schools. There is a tremendous diversity of ethos, background and tradition in these schools.

If this were a green field site, the Bill would be easy to implement. However, in forcing boards of management on schools we will have to tread warily, bearing in mind what has happened in the past. About 25 schools are privately owned, in each case by an individual. The Ceann Comhairle will be aware of a very fine one in Borrisoleigh operated by a very fine gentleman, Pádraig O'Shea. He bought this school when there were about 100 pupils and has, over 20 years, built it up until there are now 600 pupils there. Parents are voting with their feet and the school cannot expand fast enough for the numbers that wish to attend it. That individual owns the school. Grant aid and teachers' salaries are paid by the Department but the management of the school is vested in this person. Bank overdrafts and loans are dealt with by one individual and guaranteed by him. Can this Government now impose a board of management on this school? I would question our ability to do so as it may be unconstitutional. It will probably lead to a constitutional challenge and a Supreme Court hearing in which that school and others like it may succeed. The Minister might respond to that matter by quoting from the legal advice she has received on it.

The same applies to the voluntary secondary schools which are also privately owned. What is the legal advice regarding them? Have the consequences of imposing a board of management on these schools been considered? I live in the shadow of one, St. Finian's, Mullingar. What would be the consequences of imposing a board of management on that school? Could it operate in the same manner as a day school down the road? Can they divorce their boarding school activities from their normal school activities and, if so, would the board of management be applicable to the normal school activities or the school's total commitment? I am unsure of what the arrangements would be and am interested in the Minister's reply.

Another matter is the two-tier system of boards of management proposed in the Bill. There is a board of management that will apply to the voluntary secondary schools but there is a second level of board of management for vocational schools, which will not have the power to appoint staff. Again, if we were starting from a green field position, it would be easy but starting from the present position it may not be so.

There is a penalty clause built into this Bill where any school that does not comply with a board of management can be penalised. Examining that, one sees that some schools can be penalised and will not get increases and grants but some schools cannot be penalised. If a vocational school does not appoint a board of management, one cannot penalise it because it is funded through the vocational education committee, which is on a county structure. Similarly, non-Catholic voluntary secondary schools cannot be penalised individually for not appointing a board of management because they receive a block grant which is then passed on to schools, which means they do not receive direct payment. We will be left with a system that penalises voluntary Catholic secondary schools. The Minister should respond clearly as this is worrying and not something the Minister or I would wish.

Debate adjourned.

Dáil Éireann debate - Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997

Education Bill, 1997: Second Stage.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Mar 1997